Murph McBride
Active Member
What was the first year any work was done on the Cut ?
The Cut ?
- Thread starter Murph McBride
- Start date
- Status
Trix
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I looked a little closer to try to nail down the dates and elevations of the excavations. May not have found them all, but here is what I found:
1970's 3622
1993 3615
2009 3610
2013 3600
2014 3580
2019 3580 (clean up?)
There was an Environmental Assessment that led to approval to excavate to 3580, so I doubt it can go deeper without another EA.
1970's 3622
1993 3615
2009 3610
2013 3600
2014 3580
2019 3580 (clean up?)
There was an Environmental Assessment that led to approval to excavate to 3580, so I doubt it can go deeper without another EA.
Murph McBride
Active Member
Thanks Trix, that’s what I was looking for .
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
That 1993 date is especially interesting... After the lake's long run of near full pool ended following the summer of 1988, it just kept dropping through 1989-92, with barely any spring rise in 1991-92, after none at all in 1989-90, bottoming out in February 1993 at 3612. There must have been some real panic going on after the lake fell below 3625 (the usable level of the Cut at the time) for the first time in September 1992... So once it hit bottom the following February, they must have had the bulldozers ready to cut the Cut as deep as they could, which would have been 3615...
There wasn't much time to waste on that project, since the lake rose above 3615 again on March 24, 1993... The newly deepened Cut was good until early February 2003, when the lake once again fell below 3615, where it would stay for good until June 2008...
...and here's a link to the February 2008 EA, which indeed only addressed a possible cut to 3580...
ParkPlanning - Castle Rock Cut Environmental Assessment
Notably, the 2008 EA considered and dismissed an alternative that would have allowed a deeper Cut to 3560. The reasons this alternative was rejected were higher cost, more than twice as much excavated material would need to be disposed, and the visual impact of a deeper scar (see page 14 of the EA).... plus it was considered unnecessary to meet project goals... and finally it said that a keeping to 3560 would have "unacceptable impacts", which is a phrase worth sticking in your back pocket if they ever considered such a project in the future... Yes, a new EA under NEPA would be needed to go deeper than 3580...
The 2008 EA is an interesting read. But all the impacts related to fuel cost, energy use, travel time, etc. are based on the concept that it is 12 miles farther to go through Wahweap Bay and the main channel than through the Castle Rock Cut to get up the lake...which would be fine if that were true, except that it's not. It's more like 8 miles longer, not 12. (It's about 13 miles from Wahweap to the confluence of Warm Creek Bay with the main channel the long way around, compared to about 5 miles if you take the Cut.) That means the energy, fuel cost and fuel savings benefits of the Cut described in the EA are overstated by a factor of 50%... not sure anyone picked up on that at the time, but there it is...
Last edited:
- Status